[Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC
"Catherine A. Meadows" <meadows@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Thu, 08 August 2002 16:25 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18303 for <cfrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:25:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA13793 for cfrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:27:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13774; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13749 for <cfrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:27:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil (s2.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.83.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18296 for <cfrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:25:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.86.3]) by itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA08685 for <cfrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:26:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from itd.nrl.navy.mil ([132.250.196.100]) by smtp.itd.nrl.navy.mil (NAVGW 2.5.2.12) with SMTP id M2002080812262331949 for <cfrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:26:23 -0400
Received: from liverwurst.fw5540.net (liverwurst [10.0.3.31]) by itd.nrl.navy.mil (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id MAA15848; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Catherine A. Meadows" <meadows@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
Received: (from meadows@localhost) by liverwurst.fw5540.net (8.9.0/8.8.8) id MAA16025; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 12:26:20 -0400
Message-Id: <200208081626.MAA16025@liverwurst.fw5540.net>
To: cfrg@ietf.org
Cc: meadows@itd.nrl.navy.mil
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Subject: [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC
Sender: cfrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: cfrg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: cfrg@ietf.org
Hi everybody: I've been working with the IETF for a number of years, performing mechanized security analyses of various IETF protocols, including IKE and GDOI, and am presently engaged in an analysis of IKEv2. A while back, when I was starting work on the GDOI protocol, I gave an informal talk to the SMuG working group on what a security analyst would like to see in an Internet Draft, that is what information should be included to make a meaningful security analysis possible. This was mainly intended to describe the type of information I need to perform the sort of mechanized protocol analysis that I and other formal methods people do, in which we assume that the basic cryptographic mechanisms behave as black boxes and look for higher-level attacks, but the requirements are general enough so that I think that they would apply to any kind of security analysis, including a cryptographic one. I've had some interest from various WGs in seeing the slides from this talk, and I've been passing them around on an informal basis. But I've been intending to write this up in a more permament form, possibly as an informational RFC. It has occurred to me that cfrg might be the most appropriate forum for this, especially since it would allow me to get feedback from others who have done security analyses of IETF protocols. Anyway, let me know what you think. Would you be interested in seeing something like this? Does cfrg look like an appropriate forum? Cathy _______________________________________________ Cfrg mailing list Cfrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
- Re: [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC Uri Blumenthal
- RE: [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC David A. Mcgrew
- Re: [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC Senthilkumar Ayyasamy
- RE: [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC Ran Canetti
- [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC Catherine A. Meadows